I for one note the correct spelling of the word 'Maori' and find this site grinding at my roots up to my boots in incompetence!!

I don't think he misspelled Maori deliberately - I've submitted one of the dupes to this story - the Slashdot editing/preview ate the a-macron in Maori and displays it as Mori instead; so I expect abesottedphoenix did the same thing.

Not even "M&#x0101;ori" displays correctly. How come slashdot still doesn't support non ASCII characters? At this point it is probably more of a tradition thing than difficulty of implementation, right?

There may well be Maoris on Slashdot. You can't see tattoos over the Internet. Now, there are probably no Moa on Slashdot and I hope there are no Keas (they're terrorists, I tell you!), but that's ok, there are enough bird-brains as it is. I have great respect for the Maori and it is intensely sad that I lost all of my mementos from my year in New Zealand after a storage place fire.

Back to the issue at hand. It is completely reprehensible that a "common word" (because it IS a common word in New Zealand) can be trademarked at all. That is not acceptable, in and of itself. It is a flagrant abuse of the system, relying on the fact that Americans are not very up on foreign cultures. I am increasingly of the opinion that words should not be trademarkable at all. A "trademark" is, after all, first and foremost a mark. From the Sumerians to the Victorian English, this has been a stamp, a unique symbol that denotes the origin and guarantees authenticity. Arguably, the seals produced by stamps and signet rings serve the same function.

You can always make a new symbol. Creativity is endless. But you can't create a new language every time foreigners decide to trademark words from it.

> but this summary just does it - it makes so much "no sense" that> i have no fucking idea what is it about and i'm just going to skip> the topic.

which is real a shame, because what is happening is nasty, evil, theft (in the correct IP usage of the term) from a long established volunteer community by newly arrived greedy corporate. Or just take a moment to listen to the linked 2 minute mp3?

"Koha" is a Maori word meaning gift (often in a quid quo pro sense). Note that Wikipedia lists it as a custom. It is a truly wonderful name for a GPL'd project for the public good.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koha_(custom) [wikipedia.org]

The project was founded by a small country town library in 1999 when the Y2K bug was taking out their existing solution and they couldn't afford to buy another one. Since then it has grown to be a large and wonderful FOSS success story. Until last year, when an associated company that held the domain name and provided commercial support got bought out by a big corporate bully, who took ownership of the DNS and domain name, taken over the home page, obfuscated links to and existence of the community (which has had to rush out and register http://koha-community.org/ [koha-community.org] instead of their original koha dot org site), and now are trying to block the community from being able to use their own name, on their own turf. It seems that Liblime has grabbed the trademark already in the US; the original koha-community.org group after they got over their shock was able to get in first in the EU, but not Liblime (a US company) has moved in to grab it in the community's home country of New Zealand.

PTFS/Liblime's actions here are truly despicable, and if I were a customer I'd have to wonder if they are willing to screw over the people who built up the project from nothing, what is stopping them from screwing me over too?

4) Due to a variety of reasons the homepage and domains of the Koha project were taken over by a bunch of US American corporate weasels called PTFS.

5) The US corporate weasels then started a campaign aimed at convincing the world that they have taken over the Koha project and are the only legitimate source of Koha software and support. Basically they are trying to hijack the Koha project.

6) This campaign by PTFS has now gone so far that they have trademarked the word Koha. in New Zealand for no other reason than to deny it's use to the Koha foundation.

4) The actual story is not particularly weasely. HTL contracted Katipo Communications to write Koha in 1999. Katipo sold all of its Koha-related assets (including all its Koha copyrights and the koha.org domain) to LibLime in 2007. With the blessing of the community, LibLime also reserved the US trademark in 2008. The community split in 2008/2009. LibLime then sold its assets to PTFS in 2010, just after submitting the application for NZ trademark.
5) PTFS/LibLime does not try to convince anyone that theirs

So... PTFS and Liblime need their Wikipedia pages updated with something coherent that documents this mess. That way the Google test will always reveal such actions that reflect poorly on the company (i.e. they deal falsely and unfairly, thus their reputation is damaged by their actions--make this public and clear to enforce that damage).

thank you, slashdot, for reviving some old comment of mine and attaching to this article. for the record, this comment was originally to some other article where summary indeed didn't make sense (this one actually does).\

it was a bit of a surprise, though. started reading the comment. thoughts go like this:"hey, what's this guy (there are no girls on/.) having a problem understanding, this was a pretty clear summary... hmm, i think i have seen this somewhere before... OMGWTF"

Basically a company who has extended and NOT given back to the community is now wanting the trademark the name of the Open Source product.

If LibLime has distributed Koha binaries, but not source, they have violated its Copyleft license, which is much more serious than a trademark dispute. Is there any evidence they've done so? LibLime's FAQ [liblime.com] says

Q. LibLime Koha is open-source software; doesn’t that mean it’s free?A. Yes, LibLime Koha is open source and so LibLime Koha is free, in fact you can download it yourself from a number of sites, including here. LibLime is an open source support company and we were established in 2005 to work with libraries that wish to run LibLime Koha but do not have the internal resources to manage a system.LibLime offers the following services:-Professional project management for your LibLime Koha implementation-Set up and implementation of your LibLime Koha instance-LibLime Koha Training-Migration of legacy data-Hosting and support (help desk and online ticketing system)

A commercial company that has been reselling an open-source product now wants to claim ownership of the product itself. Because the current owners are not well funded, there is a prospect that they will be able to do so.

The current owners, being incredibly naive, claim to have been under the impression that foreigners couldn't trademark Maori words. (Possibly they've never heard of Coca-Cola [wikipedia.org]. Even now, they're only trying to fight the trademark application in New Zealand, so I'm not sure what (if any) effect that would have internationally.

Short version: PTFS ended up owning the community domain name and a trademark for Koha due to some weird stuff that has happened over the past 12 years. PTFS is not well regarded by the general community due to how they try to confuse users into thinking theirs is the only version, their practices which (from what I can tell) make versioning a nightmare, and their lack of regard for the community. The community does not want them to gain any more ground.

The dispute has nothing to do with copyright (and therefore Copyleft) AFAICT. I don't see any claim that LibLime is distributing proprietary derivatives of Koha. This is only a trademark dispute. If LibLime is trying to gain trademark protection for a term they adopted from the already existing project, that is an attempt to mislead at best and commit fraud at worst, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.

1. rural library responsible for the first open source library catalogue2. defence contractor PTFS3. More than a decade after rolling out Koha4. in a battle to keep a generic Mori term within the public domain

Is Koha a generic Mori (Maori) term? What is a library catalog? Like a public library catalog of the books in the library? Who is PTFS?

As far as the TM goes, If I make up a word called Azkio but it turns out to be a generic term in a language that less than.0002% of the people in the world would recog

Is Koha a generic Mori (Maori) term? What is a library catalog? Like a public library catalog of the books in the library? Who is PTFS?

As far as the TM goes, If I make up a word called Azkio but it turns out to be a generic term in a language that less than.0002% of the people in the world would recognize does that mean a TM is invalidated?

Koha is the Maori word for "gift" - It's about as generic as the english word "gift". An example in the New Zealand context would be Te Papa Tongarewa (translates as "container of treasures" - the National Museum of New Zealand) having a box by the door labelled "Koha" in the hope you'll put some money in it to help support the museum and to show your appreciation for the place.

If you ask almost any New Zealander what Koha is (that's approximately 4 million people) they'd nearly all say it means gift or d

a language that less than.0002% of the people in the world would recognize does that mean a TM is invalidated?

By my rough calculation our 4 million people gives us 0.057% of the world's population recognising the phrase:-)

The basic fact is that this is an extremely arrogant move. A company is taking a "common word", which ironically means gift, and using it for commercial gain for open source software that was created in the very country they're applying their trademark in.

The Maori meaning of "koha" is more complex than Gift - and if you start to understand the moral obligation that underpins true "koha" - you re

Just legally possible, although not morally defensible. The law, we all know well, does not always equate to justice. And that is especially true of IP law, of course.

By referencing this case I was pointing out that the NZ library has every reason to be worried. Since this rather creepy little company going after the Maori trademark has plenty of creepy company. I had no intention of defending them.

Personally I am outraged by Daddy Pepperbucks century of non-stop litigious bullying. They even went aft

I certainly agree that the TABASCO trademark should never have been granted and the company has defended it with reprehensible tactics. I've often enjoyed their products since I was young, though ironically I prefer their jalapeño sauces to the original. I will now more likely buy competitors' products.

Instead of spending their own resources to dispute the trademark, they ought to consider if the trademark covers their own domain of application - similarly to how Apple Inc and Apple corps are both trademarks built on a single English word, but technically don't cover the same area - one is a trademark on an IT brand, the other is a trademark on a music store, and one should not be able to confuse one for the other (although they have fought over the name, needlessly really). Is LibLime asking them to C

The trademark was originated by the project that invented the software at the poor library in NZ. Because the software can be distributed for free anyone can download it and re-distribute the software. So what Liblime did was downloaded the software and because the poor owner of the software failed to register the trademark worldwide Liblime registered the trademarks. And they are now marketing the trademark as theirs totally hijacking the real project's trademark.

I'm pretty sure LibLime's application for trademark was the first (and probably only) one. It seems that the originators of the project didn't apply for a trademark because they didn't think the generic word "Koha" could be trademarked. Horowhenua Library Trust is not saying they should hold the "real" trademark but that the trademark shouldn't exist at all.

Let face it if you start any kind of business, blog or public project you now need to get it trademarked from day one to prevent the vultures from circling you a decade later in the unlikely event that you are even a little successful.
$275 per class for a TEAS Plus application that meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 2.22 and 2.23
$325 per class for an application filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)
$375 per class for an application filed on paper
Tha

This summary and the ensuing discussion are so full of dumb and FUD, it's hard to know where to start. I'll list a few bullets:

1) If managing one of the Navy's library catalogs makes PTFS/LibLime a "defense contractor," that's a serious diffusion of the term.2) PTFS/LibLime has held the same trademark continuously in the US for several years without any attempts to limit its use. The same applies to this trademark.3) PTFS/LibLime's project is also OSS: https://github.com/liblime/LibLime-Koha4) The LibLime c

Considering the behavior of ptfs/liblime up to now, why would any reasonable person trust ptfs/liblime as a steward of the koha trademark?

Yes, your divisive and herd-ish community is a real trust broker.

Thank you for not referring to the ptfs/liblime fork as "koha".
By saying that "...PTFS/LibLime's project is also OSS," you seem to be acknowledging that it is separate from koha, so why not call it by a different name?

Why not call HLT's project a different name?

Is the small size of ptfs/liblime supposed to excuse its abhorrent behavior and lack of moral compass?

One of HLT's tactics is to spin us as some mega-corp bully.

False. HLT is the side that claims that LibLime should not be permitted to trademark the name "koha".

Please spend 30 seconds on the HLT mailing lists or IRC after mentioning LibLime's name. All of the following commentary will predictably be along the lines of "that's not *real* Koha" or "they have no right to use that name." Please cite one, just one, instance where PTFS/LibLime has said that about HLT. Just one.

So, are you saying that HLT is to blame for not taking "...the issue seriously enough to stop their own trademark..." from being acquired by ptfs/liblime? In other words, ptfs/liblime is not responsible for what it is doing, but HLT is to blame for allowing ptfs/liblime to to do it?? Wow, you folks at ptfs/liblime really have no moral compass at all.

Thank you for not referring to the ptfs/liblime fork as "koha".By saying that "...PTFS/LibLime's project is also OSS," you seem to be acknowledging that it is separate from koha, so why not call it by a different name?

Why not call HLT's project a different name?

Um, because they were the ones that created the project? Duh.

Is the small size of ptfs/liblime supposed to excuse its abhorrent behavior and lack of moral compass?

One of HLT's tactics is to spin us as some mega-corp bully.

Which your posts here are doing a damn fine job of reinforcing.

So, are you saying that HLT is to blame for not taking "...the issue seriously enough to stop their own trademark..." from being acquired by ptfs/liblime? In other words, ptfs/liblime is not responsible for what it is doing, but HLT is to blame for allowing ptfs/liblime to to do it?? Wow, you folks at ptfs/liblime really have no moral compass at all.

No, I'm saying that in addition to their hostility and divisiveness (which is what has prevented PTFS from simply canceling the app when we found out about its existence), HLT is also incompetent. They let their own application fall to rot. If they had not done so, they could have (probably successfully) contested PTFS' claim. But this way it sure is useful for garnering attention and donations.

Which still doesn't explain why FTFS feels it has to trademark the name at all. The only reason you need one is if you actually feel you have to protect the brand from dilution (i.e. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian, Firefox) - many OSS projects get along just fine without one.

Our goal was self-preservation, to ensure our ability to retain use of the name in the face of the HLT community's aggressive efforts to exclude us and establish itself as "the real Koha". I don't think that goal readily qualifies one way or the other on the "noble and worthy" scale, but it should not surprise anyone that we would pursue actions to keep using a name that we have rights to.